Originally Posted by AbhorsenWhat would the monitor have had to do to gain a 10 in Value? As for what it offers it seems a steal?

Drop in price by £303.78? It is a steal but one factor that a 10 for value would have to include would be that everyone could afford it. It's well priced and you get what you pay for but it's much more expensive than 23in TN panels.

Originally Posted by XirIn "Conclusion" you mean HP LP2475w instead of HP LP2575w , right?
The Dell SP2309W has a resolution of 2.048x1.152, also 16:9...never heard of that one before...

You couldn't recommend me a 23/24" 16:10 (at least 1920x1200) in that pricerange, could you?

The Dell's resolution is a little strange, but games support it just fine - and it looks gorgeous, because it's actually slightly more pixels than 19 x 12. It can also cope with 1080p video, and you get lots and lots of desktop space - I got mine so I could edit photos more easily.

At the Dell's price - £180 - I wouldn't think a 24in, 19 x 12 would be good - it's an inherently more expensive panel size...

Could do with a quarterly best monitor in price bracket feature (similar to the budget pc/crazy but cool type sections in Custom PC) that give you an idea of what monitor to purchase based on budget...

Originally Posted by JipaI want a cheap 1920x1200 screen, too bad all inexpensive ones seem to be 1080p these days :(

Good value nonetheless, good choice for plenty of people out there.

Why would they make them at a 16:10 res? That would be a step backwards. 1080p means you can watch your movies and play console games in full-screen mode with pixel-per-pixel mapping and no stretching.

Originally Posted by JipaI want a cheap 1920x1200 screen, too bad all inexpensive ones seem to be 1080p these days :(

Good value nonetheless, good choice for plenty of people out there.

Why would they make them at a 16:10 res? That would be a step backwards. 1080p means you can watch your movies and play console games in full-screen mode with pixel-per-pixel mapping and no stretching.

lol

all you get with 1080 is less pixels, all good monitors will still show pixel perfect res but with black bars top and bottom, which personally i can live with for the sake of having more vertical space which is more useful in most applications for your pc (browsing, word processing, games). Please dont be blinded by marketing jargon, 1080p in monitor terms just means less pixels which generally means less functionality.

Originally Posted by Er-ElWhy would they make them at a 16:10 res? That would be a step backwards. 1080p means you can watch your movies and play console games in full-screen mode with pixel-per-pixel mapping and no stretching.

in what way is LESS screen space better? everything can be resized or already plays in pixel perfect 1080 on a 1200 so what honestly is the benefit? do you like to see that nice shiny 1080p sticker on the box? is that it?

a pc is used for many things other than watching media and 16:9 is only useful for watching media. great for TV's, not so for PC's which are expected to perform plenty of tasks that benefit from more vertical screen space. seriously some people swallow marketing jargon like it was free caviar.

all you get with 1080 is less pixels, all good monitors will still show pixel perfect res but with black bars top and bottom, which personally i can live with for the sake of having more vertical space which is more useful in most applications for your pc (browsing, word processing, games). Please dont be blinded by marketing jargon, 1080p in monitor terms just means less pixels which generally means less functionality.

A whopping 20 pixels more vertically on a 16:10 version of 24" monitor!!! WOW!
I don't fall for marketing. I have a 1920x1200 monitor at the moment and have to switch to a different mode leaving black bars when playing an Xbox 360 game or watching a film in full screen, and the black bars take up a fair bit of space. I'd definitely choose 20 pixels less over a non-distorted and no black bar rubbish (considering you already get the ADDITIONAL black bars in a film anyway which are usually produced in 21:9 cinema ratio). What difference would an extra 20 pixels make to your productivity anyway when both resolutions are already very high as it is?

Originally Posted by perplekks45Blinded by the marketing lights, are we?

1080p was basically forced upon the PC monitor market by the movie & TV lobbyists. I still remember the outcry of many people when it happened. You guys seem to forget pretty fast.

What a nice monitor though. Not in the market myself right now but that'd be what I'd buy.

Read my previous post. I certainly was never against it. I remember when 16:10 monitors were first coming out and there was a huge outcry against that move from 4:3 but people are now quick to defend 16:10. The same thing is happening in this transition to 16:9 now.

To me it seems the positives of 16:9 easily outweigh the negatives; especially in the long run with all applications when we get even higher resolution than 1080 - the next step probably being 2560x1440.

Originally Posted by perplekks45Blinded by the marketing lights, are we?

1080p was basically forced upon the PC monitor market by the movie & TV lobbyists. I still remember the outcry of many people when it happened. You guys seem to forget pretty fast.

What a nice monitor though. Not in the market myself right now but that'd be what I'd buy.

Read my previous post. I certainly was never against it. I remember when 16:10 monitors were first coming out and there was a huge outcry against that move from 4:3 but people are now quick to defend 16:10. The same thing is happening in this transition to 16:9 now.

To me it seems the positives of 16:9 easily outweigh the negatives; especially in the long run with all applications when we get even higher resolution than 1080 - the next step probably being 2560x1440.

Agreed.

If I were going to be concerned about wanting a large vertical resolution, then I wouldn't go for a wide screen monitor in the first place. I would go for something like, maybe a 4:3 screen. Or I would turn a widescreen sideways and set the windows desktop from landscape to portrait mode.

For people who do not do much media on their PCs, the 16:10 versus 16:9 thing wouldn't bother them. In fact, most of them would probably choose 16:10 simply to gain the extra vertical pixels.

However, I do a heavy amount of media, and there is no real 16:10 standard.

For Blu-ray movies, I wouldn't want any extra black bars to add to the black bars already at the top and botton of the screen.

Who is watching BluRays or HD MKV on a monitor like this anyway? Use a DVI-HDMI cable and watch them on your big HDTV if you have one. Way better.

Good review bit-tech.

I'm also suprised by the increase in number of 1080p monitors. This size is for TV, not monitors that should stay 1920x1200 which is more useful for using a PC and a better size when gaming.

I think the main problem when monitors first started going from 4:3 to 16:10 was that most games at the time didn't support the new resolutions if I remember correctly, which isn't a problem now these days. After using a widescreen monitor I (and I imagine most people) wouldn't go back to 4:3.